About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 25
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan and pakistan. not later than 120 days after enactment of this act, the entity described in subsection 8, shall submit to the president and the congress, a report. sense of congress, it is the sense of congress that the entity should be modeled on the iraq study group. section 8127, not more than $200 million may be expended -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. carter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. strike lines 6 through 9 relating to military musical units. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i rise to address an issue i think is very important to the patriotic men and women who fight and defend our country. representative mccollum, in good graces, asked that we restrict the military band funding by $120 million and in an attempt to help with the savings. but the congressional budget office has informed us that this reduction, this $120 million re
and a with scott miller. >> david axe was imbedded with the u.s. army in afghanistan. it is his fourth visit to the country. he spent time with the 4th airbourne, patrolling in remote areas and engaging the security situation. obama announced a plan to bring 10,000 troops home from afghanistan by the end of the year. >> it depends on where you are. my experience is in the east. i have a little experience in the south. in the south, there is a lot of open combat. this is the headquarters of the taliban. >> in the east the violence depends on where you are. these to have strong relationships with kabul, with a lot of traffic. today, these are what i call, bombing galleries, where the coalition troops and a large coalition presence is trying very hard to like this town in order to protect this. but every step that they take, they are threatened. thousands every year, that are killing hundreds of native troops, and many times the number of afghans. as we move closer to the border, and you had se, the threat will change. this is not so much ied's because there is less vehicle traffic. the coaliti
of afghanistan, its abilities to reestablish the safe haven. in other words, we in to render the heart of al qaeda and capable of launching attacks on our homeland, citizens, our allies, as well as preventing this group and its affiliates and adherents from doing so. at the same time, hopefully a kid and means to address the serious threat posed by the -- this does not require a global war. it does require a focus on specific regions, including what we might call the periphery, places like yemen, somalia, iraq -- it is another important distinguishing factor. it has looked increasingly to other groups and individuals to take a because, including the gold strike and the united states. we a specific and focus counter- terrorism and objectives. we're protecting our home and by constantly reducing our vulnerability is and not acting -- and adapting our abilities. we're the greatest al qaeda's capabilities and disrupting its operation. we're degrading the capability of al qaeda senior leadership to inspire, to nicki with, and direct the operations of its adherents from the world. we are aggressiv
actxs reports on u.s. troops in southern afghanistan. then, representative thaddeus mccotter announces his candidacy for president. >> tune in to c-span this independent state. panelists discuss if the united states can remain united. >> at the political level, we are more divided. you look at partisan polarization at any point since the civil war and reconstruction. >> then, religion, bonds, and the death penalty. later, nixon white house insiders discuss his foreign policy. this monday on c-span. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> david axe was imbedded with the u.s. army in afghanistan. it is his fourth visit to the country. he spent time with the 4th airbourne, patrolling in remote areas and engaging the security situation. obama announced a plan to bring 10,000 troops home from afghanistan by the end of the year. >> it depends on where you are. my experience is in the east. i have a little experience in the south. in the south, there is a lot of open combat. this is the headquarters of the taliban. >> in the east the violence depends on where you are. these to have st
rodriguez says he doesn't expect violence in afghanistan to start decreasing until next year. from the pentagon earlier today, this is 45 minutes. >> general rodriguez, it's counselor dave lapin at the pentagon. if you're ready to go, i'll introduce you and we'll get started. >> ok, dave, go ahead, thanks. >> thank you. good morning to those here, good evening in afghanistan. i'd like to welcome pack to the pentagon briefing room, army lieutenant general david rodriguez. he's commander of the international security assistance force joint command, also known as i.j.c. and also the deputy commander of the united states forces afghanistan. general rodriguez's current tour began in june, 2009, he became the first commander of the i.j.c. in october of that year. prior to that, general rodriguez was commander of regional command east for 15 months from january, 2007 to april, 2008. next week after two straight years in command and more than 40 months in after gap stan over the past 4 1/2 year, general rodriguez is ski wruled to change command and return stateside to have u.s. army forces
to debate the timing of our military drawdown in afghanistan. my belief is that the general's voice should carry the most weight. what is wrong as for the republican party to shrink from the challenges of american leadership in the world. history repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakest and foreign policy cost us and our children much more than we will ever say in the budget -- saved in the budget line item. america has one political party devoted to decline and withdrawal it doesn't need a second one. our enemies respect and respond to strength. sometimes strength means military intervention. sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. that always means moral clarity in word and deed. that is the legacy of republican foreign policy at its best in our next republican president must carry the banner around the world. of equality and opportunity for all citizens, it remains a dream for people in the middle east and around the world. as america stands for these principles and stands with our friends and allies, the middle east will transform this moment of turbulence into a more lasting
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
to afghanistan. we were out of the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and settled in waziristan and pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this encounter terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground at the cost we are paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] and i am here to tell you that the future of the u.s. is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the u.s., whether you want to recognize it or not, is going to be determined by how well prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive century, and that battle is going to be waged across the ocean. as you walk off of this building, i want you to remember why we are in this race. it is about the generation behind us and the condition they will find our nation in. the debt trajectory that we are on. and number two, the reality of launching a new industrial revolution, it is within our grasp. it has happened before in our nation's history. problem-solving people can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan.
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
university professor. after this break, we will talk more politics and legislation and afghanistan with our roundtable, conn carroll and jamelle bouie. be right back. ♪ >> monday on c-span, the dali lama -- dalai lama and martin luther king, jr.'s speechwriter. they spoke about a number of topics, including the death penalty. >> the number of people who kill through violence -- are killed through violence, over 200 million. but problem not solved. i think that people lay down a seed of hatred. >> watch this discussion monday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on c-span, look back at president nixon's foreign policy. members of his administration and the president's son-in-law discuss topics including communism in china, invading north vietnam, and the 1967 war in the middle east. >> the discussion then in the newspapers were nixon's secret plan for peace. what was it? of course, he never talked about it. that was rockefeller pushing nixon to say something, to expose what his plan was. rockefeller did not think that nixon had a plan. he comes in after a hard day of campaigning
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
in afghanistan and iraq and not really cutting the deficit. we're boring 40 cents on the dollar for every dollar that we spend in washington. and we cannot keep doing this. one thing i like to see is the repeal of obamacare. that alone would save us $2.5 trillion in the next 10 years. as far as the reid plan, i like to see him get it through the senate. i did not think that it would pass. host: couple we go to an independent in michigan, here is what the "new york times calls " says this morning. go ahead. caller: i called my representative yesterday and asked him to work with the president to compromise and make sure that the debt ceiling is raised over into 2013. this is destroying our economy. host: where do you see compromise? caller: th reid plan has cuts and take this off the table until 2013. i think that that makes sense. host: so you do not agree with republicans on this. caller: i do not. there is trillions of dollars being cut. let's take this and we don't want to make this something that the rest of the world is going to use against us. our dollar is worth nothing in the last 10 year
every month for military operations in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr
of other members of congress, there were warlords from the northern alliance of afghanistan that wanted to meet with us because we were told that the administration didn't want to meet with them and after we met with them it was clear why the administration wouldn't want to. now, i was not aware and it was during the bush administration, of course, our initial actions in afghanistan, we sent in intelligence, we sent in special forces, we sent in weaponry, we equipped the northern alliance tribes who had a special personal interest in defeating the taliban. and afghanistan as a whole had seen how evil the taliban was. how much damage they could do to society as they burned paintings and books and films and totally suppressed freedom in afghanistan. they knew. these people were evil but they were afraid of them but with the united states weaponry, with our guidance and intelligence training these people defeated the taliban. what i was not aware of until we met with these folks and turns out i could have been aware, i just was not, but do you the research, you find out, the bush administr
in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real. if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class. host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united stat
, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real. if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class. host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united states, and we n
trove of documents that have been released in the last year. the iraq war logs, the afghanistan war logs, and what has been called cablegate, as the u.s. state department documents that are continuing to be released. why does it matter so much? we will talk about that this afternoon, but let's just take one example that came out in the iraq war logs. february 2007. the war log show that to give you zero men were standing, iraqis under an apache helicopter. the men have their hands up. they clearly are attempting to surrender. the apache helicopter can see this. so they are not wrote. the soldiers called back to the base and asked what they should do. the lawyer in the bass says you cannot surrender to a helicopter, and they blow the man attempting to surrender away. that was february 2007. now, we will fast forward to july 12, 2007. video that has been released by wikileaks. this devastating video of an area of baghdad where a group of men were showing around two reuters journalists. one was an up-and-coming videographer, and one was this driver. he was 40 years old, father of four. they
,000 to afghanistan so we can spend dollars a gallon on gasoline of afghan people spend a dollar and 20 -- $1.20. it is ridiculous what we allow these people to get away with. and how many people -- i think there is 37% of this nation that consider themselves republicans now. i just can't believe there are that many stupid people in this nation. have a nice day, susan b. host: thank you. a headline in "the wall street journal." sara lee and janet hook. one note -- investors in u.s. treasuries are not betting a major deal will solve the u.s. debt situation. a tweet from peter hogan -- >> is clarksburg, west virginia. dispensed -- next is clarksburg, west virginia. spence. caller: i would like to say united we stand and divided we fall and we need to apply it to the government. we need to start with congress eliminating their little perks. some of the benefits we give to congress -- and the military men, paying them what they do, benefits for life, but when these clowns of their retired they carry a lifetime package with them. if we want to talk about deficit cuts, maybe we can close some of th
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
the caller is right certainly in the case of pakistan and afghanistan. the united states lost sight of the importance of the region after the soviet the feet. certainly, i would hope there would be a sustained engagement that would be based on mutual respect and upon the principles that we mentioned earlier. with regards to what he mentioned about dealings in pakistan and elsewhere towards the united states, people in the middle east largely very much admire the united states for its educational institutions, the level of economic development, the basic rule of law, and so on. they were to come here, a study here, emigrate here, but there critical of some american policies. that is really the issue. we know what those policies are. host: last couple of calls. bloomington, illinois. caller: first of all, i just want to respond to the caller that the military saved muslims in southeast europe in kosovo. here is my question regarding europe. are there any elements in the arab spring in north africa that wants to integrate with europe? maybe in the future join the european union? at one
's watched did that occur? under whose watch did we have wars in afghanistan that we started? under his watch, the economy faltered that we had to rescue it from going off of a cliff. republicans are equally responsible if not more responsible than democrats for the situation we are in now. host: when the democrats had control, why didn't they raise taxes? guest: i agreed that raising taxes on people making over $250,000 was a good idea. obama introduced a budget that called for that. by the end of 200010, -- 2010, the tax cuts were going to expire. there was a situation where the economy could get even worse. we will not extend a tax cuts for the middle class. if you do that, extend it for the rich. -- and he said, i will sacrifice to reach a compromise. he has shown that willingness many times over. host: republican line, for lauderdale florida. caller: i am very fearful of something going on with the politics of the united states into the discussion going on now. i see the democratic party developing what i call. you elect me, and i will get other people's money and take care of your probl
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
not be able to do things militarily to support our troops in afghanistan and iraq. i view this, i think it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving our china, india, brazil and other countries an advantage. i view this program as a two-way street. it does provide a degree of access to american companies and so i would be also reluctant -- i reluctantly oppose your amendment but i can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. it has borne some fruit. mr. frelinghuysen: it's not money wasted, it's not money given away to competitors. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: but again, i think it draws attention that we should be closely monitoring these funds. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from fey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i'd like to yield to dr. harris from maryland. mr. harris: let me briefly address this so we can move on. we only cut $6 million out of the $8 million. there's budget language further on t
-- the international computer underground." but with the iraq war logs, the afghanistan war laws, and the u.s. cables that have yet to be fully release, i would say that julian assange is perhaps the most widely published purpose on earth. -- person on earth. today will have a conversation about information and i would like to ask julianne to begin -- julian to begin by going back to that moment in 2007, and talk about the significance of those for you and why you have chosen to release this information. >> amy, on that criteria, perhaps rupert murdoch's goal most widely published person on earth, and people have said that australia has given two people to the world, rupert murdoch and me. begin publishing. [laughter] in some ways, things are very easy for us and for me. we make a promise to sources that if they give us material of a certain type of significance, of diplomatic, historic, or ethical significance, and they are under a certain threat, we will publish it. that is actually and up. we have a goal with publishing material. it has been my long-term believe that what advances of civilization
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)